The aim of this study was to determine the physiological variables that predict competition performance during a CrossFit competition. Fifteen male amateur CrossFit athletes (age, 35 ± 9 years; CrossFit experience, 40 ± 27 months) performed a series of laboratory-based tests (incremental load test for deep full squat and bench press; squat, countermovement and drop jump tests; and incremental running and Wingate tests) that were studied as potential predictors of CrossFit performance. Thereafter, they performed the five Workouts of the Day (WODs) corresponding to the CrossFit Games Open 2019, and we assessed the relationship between the laboratory-based markers and CrossFit performance with regression analyses. Overall CrossFit performance (i.e., final ranking considering the sum of all WODs, as assessed by number of repetitions, time spent in exercises or weight lifted) was significantly related to jump ability, mean and peak power output during the Wingate test, relative maximum strength for the deep full squat and the bench press, and maximum oxygen uptake (VO_2max) and speed during the incremental test (all p < 0.05, r = 0.58–0.75). However, the relationship between CrossFit Performance and most laboratory markers varied depending on the analyzed WOD. Multiple linear regression analysis indicated that measures of lower-body muscle power (particularly jump ability) and VO_2max explained together most of the variance (R² = 81%, p < 0.001) in overall CrossFit performance. CrossFit performance is therefore associated with different power-, strength-, and aerobic-related markers.

This study analyzed the relationship between CrossFit performance and power and strength variables measured in the full-squat exercise. Twenty male trained subjects (33±7 years) performed an incremental load full-squat test for assessment of the 1-repetition maximum (1RM) and the mean (Pmean) and peak (Ppeak) power. Performance in 5 different Workouts of the Day (WODs) was measured on different days, and overall CrossFit performance was determined as the sum of the scores obtained in these WODs. Athletes were then assigned to a high (HP) or low (LP) performance group based on the median score for overall performance. Correlation analysis between squat variables and performance was performed and between-group differences were assessed. Moderate to strong (r=0.47–0.69, p<0.05) positive correlations were found between squat variables and performance in the different WODs. Overall CrossFit performance was strongly and positively associated with absolute (r=0.62, p=0.01) and relative 1RM (r=0.65, p=0.07), and relative Pmean (r=0.56, p=0.02) and Ppeak (r=0.53, p=0.03). Large differences (effect sizes ranging 1.1–1.7, all p<0.05) were observed between HP and LP for absolute and relative 1RM, relative Pmean, and absolute and relative Ppeak. In summary, strength and power indexes measured in a squat test are positively associated with CrossFit performance. ^* contributed equally

We assessed the effects of a short-term velocity-based resistance training (VBRT, where exercise intensity is individualized based on the loads and repetitions that maximize power output) program compared with traditional resistance training (TRT, where the same number of repetitions and relative load are used for every individual) on body composition, muscle strength/power, and endurance performance in competitive female cyclists. Seventeen participants were randomly assigned to 6 weeks (two sessions/week) of TRT (n = 8) or VBRT (n = 9), during which they maintained their usual endurance program. Both interventions included squat, hip thrust, and split squat exercises. Training loads were continuously registered, and outcomes were measures of muscle strength/power, body composition, and endurance performance (incremental test and 8-min time trial). No differences between TRT and VBRT groups were found for overall internal training loads during resistance training or cycling sessions (p > 0.05). Both interventions led to significant improvements in all strength/power-related outcomes, but VBRT induced greater improvements than TRT in maximum muscle strength and power as assessed with the hip thrust exercise (p < 0.05 for the group by time interaction effect). However, no significant group by time interaction effect was found for body composition or endurance performance-related outcomes. In conclusion, the addition of a short-term intervention of VBRT or TRT to the usual training regimen of competitive female cyclists improves muscle strength/power, albeit VBRT might induce superior gains on maximum strength/power for the hip thrust exercise.

Purpose: To present normative data for the record power profile of male professional cyclists attending to team categories and riding typologies. Methods: Power output data registered from 4 professional teams during 8 years (N = 144 cyclists, 129,262 files, and 1062 total seasons [7 (5) per cyclist] corresponding to both training and competition sessions) were analyzed. Cyclists were categorized as ProTeam (n = 46) or WorldTour (n = 98) and as all-rounders (n = 65), time trialists (n = 11), climbers (n = 50), sprinters (n = 11), or general classification contenders (n = 7). The record power profile was computed as the highest maximum mean power (MMP) value attained for different durations (1 s to 240 min) in both relative (W·kg⁻¹) and absolute units (W). Results: Significant differences between ProTeam and WorldTour were found for both relative (P = .002) and absolute MMP values (P = .006), with WT showing lower relative, but not absolute, MMP values at shorter durations (30–60 s). However, higher relative and absolute MMP values were recorded for very short- (1 s) and long-duration efforts (60 and 240 min for relative MMP values and ≥5 min for absolute ones). Differences were also found regarding cyclists’ typologies for both relative and absolute MMP values (P < .001 for both), with sprinters presenting the highest relative and absolute MMP values for short-duration efforts (5–30 s) and general classification contenders presenting the highest relative MMP values for longer efforts (1–240 min). Conclusions: The present results––obtained from the largest cohort of professional cyclists assessed to date—could be used to assess cyclists’ capabilities and indicate that the record power profile can differ between cyclists’ categories and typologies.

Cycling power meters enable monitoring external loads and performance changes. We aimed to determine the concurrent validity of the novel Favero Assioma Duo (FAD) pedal power meter compared with the crank-based SRM system (considered as gold standard). Thirty-three well-trained male cyclists were assessed at different power output (PO) levels (100–500 W and all-out 15-s sprints), pedaling cadences (75–100 rpm) and cycling positions (seating and standing) to compare the FAD device vs. SRM. No significant differences were found between devices for cadence nor for PO during all-out efforts (p > 0.05), although significant but small differences were found for efforts at lower PO values (p < 0.05 for 100–500 W, mean bias 3–8 W). A strong agreement was observed between both devices for mean cadence (ICC > 0.87) and PO values (ICC > 0.81) recorded in essentially all conditions and for peak cadence (ICC > 0.98) and peak PO (ICC > 0.99) during all-out efforts. The coefficient of variation for PO values was consistently lower than 3%. In conclusion, the FAD pedal-based power meter can be considered an overall valid system to record PO and cadence during cycling, although it might present a small bias compared with power meters placed on other locations such as SRM.